Chennai Corporation, property tax, suo motu, Madras High Court

Justice N Kirbukaran, while hearing a plea challenging the property tax demand in respect of a shop at a commercial establishment in Koyambedu, was aghast with the submission by the Chennai Corporation that property tax on commercial establishments had not been revised since 1996. He said, “It is disheartening to note that the trust and faith reposed by the voters in their Councillors have been frustrated by their conduct. The successive ruling parties, which have been controlling the Chennai Corporation from 1996 onwards is to be squarely blamed for this lapse. Once the details regarding the loss caused to the local body is placed before this court, this court would pass appropriate orders regarding slapping of the said amount on appropriate persons.” 

Also, noting that shopping malls, surfacing at every available space in Chennai and, get away with lower property tax, Justice Kirubakaran said, “All shoddy work are blamed on shortage of staff and funding. Even during the December floods last year, the blame was shifted on shortage of staff while they could, through proper review of property tax, augment Corporation’s revenue and increase their staff strength to ensure better quality work.” However, the judge sought the Commissioner and the Secretary, Municipal Administration, to answer as to why property tax payable in respect of city properties have not been revised.  

“What would be the total amount, that would be payable to the Corporation, in case, the property tax had been revised during the years 2002, 2006, 2010 and 2014? What would be the enhancement amount alone for the above years, which would be the total loss caused due to non-revision? When the corporation is likely to revise the property tax, what is the time limit required? Whether steps are properly taken to recover the existing property tax? Whether lease amount payable in respect of properties of corporation are revised promptly and levied?” the judge asked. The judge also held that “If there is shortage of manpower during natural calamities, the administration would not be able to restore the amenities in time. Since non-revision of property tax has resulted in exponential loss of the revenue to the local body, the ultimate sufferers are the people as their elected representatives have failed to act in their interest.” The case has been posted for further hearing to November 30.

The High Court has quashed an order of the State Assembly Secretary removing the special personal assistant of Opposition leader M K Stalin. The assembly secretary, along with repatriating the personal assistant M Athiseshan in the rank of deputy secretary to secretariat service, also downgraded the post.

Justice R Subbaiah quashed the order after holding that “The Supreme Court time and again has reiterated that a person appointed on deputation in a tenure post for a fixed period, has no right to go back to his original post before the fixed term comes to an end.” The judge also held that “A person appointed on deputation in a tenure post has an indefeasible right to be treated fairly and equally. If a person is appointed on deputation, the same cannot be cancelled without the consent of the person before whom the person is presently serving. If deputation is not a simple transfer and if the appointment is a tenure posting, the same cannot be curtailed.” Also, based on the arguments of senior counsel P Wilson, appearing on behalf of Stalin, to fix a time limit to implement the order, the judge directed the Assembly Secretary to place Athiseshan as special personal assistant to the leader of opposition at the earliest. Stalin in his plea citing GOs had contended that as Leader of Opposition he was entitled to have a personal secretary and he had selected Athiseshan, from a panel of candidates provided to him.

Close on the heels of the High Court ordering a blanket ban on the registration of unapproved layouts and plots in Tamil Nadu, a similar plea has been moved for safeguarding the agriculture lands in Puducherry.

The first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice R Mahadevan, before whom the public interest litigation moved in this regard came up, ordered notice to the Puducherry government. The bench also recorded the submission of the senior counsel appearing for the Puducherry government that “in view of the observations of this court in similar matters pertaining to Tamil Nadu and The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, a legislation is already in contemplation to deal with the subject matters sought to be raised in the present petition, for which about two weeks’ time may be granted.” 

The bench then posted the mater for further hearing to January 3, 2017. The petitioner Elephant Rajendran, an advocate, had submitted that the extent of agriculture in the union territory was rapidly turning from bad to worse. Noting that people cannot live only on technological development and they have to depend on agriculture for food, he said real estate agents were on the prowl in Puducherry to convert agricultural lands into plots ignoring the Puducherry Town and Country Planning Act. He also submitted that the Coastal Regulatory Zone was being ignored. He also sought to restrain the authorities from granting any layout approval in agricultural land and restrain the authorities from registering any document or sale deed relating to the unapproved plots, layouts, buildings and flats.